So i just quoted everyone and moved the thread over here, i bow to the great shogun as i never knew there were names for the moral systems and i would love to learn more about them

And so i made a new thread, sorry, but this really needs a more well-thoughtout topic without spamming the Anipril thread

DemonEyesJoe wrote:ok, so...someone explain to me how when characters sacrifice people, small amounts of people, for the greater good of the world, or the universe, or anything larger than the sacrifice made. why are they labeled the "bad guy".

for example, kubey, girls fought and died in order to overcome entropy to save the universe (i know, that make no sence IRL, but for the sake of the show...)

and light, he killed criminals to ensure the world was a better place for all. ill never understand how these people get labeld as "bad" even though what they were doing, realistically, made PERFECT SENCE

speaking of people making sacrifices for the greater good...

Last edited by DemonEyesJoe on Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:40 am; edited 3 times in total

DemonEyesJoe wrote:ok, so...someone explain to me how when characters sacrifice people, small amounts of people, for the greater good of the world, or the universe, or anything larger than the sacrifice made. why are they labeled the "bad guy".

Oh, I'm all for sacrificing (others) for the greater good, and if you knew how literal I'm being with this you'd probably be quite disturbed... But Kyubey simply gets on me nerves, dunno why, it just does. Still at some point later on I may very well end up voting for it. And btw that quote from it is probably my favorite in the whole show.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:ok, so...someone explain to me how when characters sacrifice people, small amounts of people, for the greater good of the world, or the universe, or anything larger than the sacrifice made. why are they labeled the "bad guy".

for example, kubey, girls fought and died in order to overcome entropy to save the universe (i know, that make no sence IRL, but for the sake of the show...)

and light, he killed criminals to ensure the world was a better place for all. ill never understand how these people get labeld as "bad" even though what they were doing, realistically, made PERFECT SENCE

speaking of people making sacrifices for the greater good...

DO NOT READ if you haven't seen Madoka.It's because of the fact that most people reflexively use a deontological system (aka a Kantian system) as their base moral system. Basically the first rule of deontology is act so that you treat people as ends not means. Kyuubey used girls as basically batteries, and made it so that suffering, corruption, and death are his very power source. Granted the universe might have simply required that and Madoka's universe changed that law. But even still, sacrificing people for the common good is very rarely viewed as morally righteous unless a) the person acts under complete knowledge of what they do (thus Madoka almost being a Jesus like figure in canon) and b) if the actor has some cost as well. Kyuubey has neither working for him, basically appearing as a creature who tricks people into helping the universe by making their very existence pure suffering while he sits on high wondering why humanity hates him so. Light has a similar problem. He doesn't believe the system of justice works (one that is a system that sees people as ends) and instead chooses who dies, as a vigilante would with a gun. Even less than a vigilante with a gun, because he sits on high without even being there, literally taking peoples lives because the media reports that they are under arrest or under suspicion. Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless. For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

DemonEyesJoe wrote:ok, so...someone explain to me how when characters sacrifice people, small amounts of people, for the greater good of the world, or the universe, or anything larger than the sacrifice made. why are they labeled the "bad guy".

for example, kubey, girls fought and died in order to overcome entropy to save the universe (i know, that make no sence IRL, but for the sake of the show...)

and light, he killed criminals to ensure the world was a better place for all. ill never understand how these people get labeld as "bad" even though what they were doing, realistically, made PERFECT SENCE

speaking of people making sacrifices for the greater good...

DO NOT READ if you haven't seen Madoka.It's because of the fact that most people reflexively use a deontological system (aka a Kantian system) as their base moral system. Basically the first rule of deontology is act so that you treat people as ends not means. Kyuubey used girls as basically batteries, and made it so that suffering, corruption, and death are his very power source. Granted the universe might have simply required that and Madoka's universe changed that law. But even still, sacrificing people for the common good is very rarely viewed as morally righteous unless a) the person acts under complete knowledge of what they do (thus Madoka almost being a Jesus like figure in canon) and b) if the actor has some cost as well. Kyuubey has neither working for him, basically appearing as a creature who tricks people into helping the universe by making their very existence pure suffering while he sits on high wondering why humanity hates him so. Light has a similar problem. He doesn't believe the system of justice works (one that is a system that sees people as ends) and instead chooses who dies, as a vigilante would with a gun. Even less than a vigilante with a gun, because he sits on high without even being there, literally taking peoples lives because the media reports that they are under arrest or under suspicion. Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless. For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

Good old shogun. The reason I don't like Kyubey is because like you said he just sits on high while he sacrifices others for the greater good. he doesn't try to spare them from suffering he makes it as bad as possible and then just sits there and collects the benefits. He doesn't try to make any kind of sacrifice of his own and that is where any claim of being a "Good guy" goes out the window for me. If he can't put himself on the line he has no right to manipulate others into sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

Same for light he was willing to kill anyone, even cops and innocent people, because he saw it as a means to help make the world a better place. But he loses the right to justify his actions when he proves that he can't put his own life on the line and dies rather pathetically at the end. Plus light was just crazy.

Noobs wrote:^ well kyubey justified himself by comparing their line of work like of those meat slaughter houses.

Right, and that's why he's so monstrous from a deontological perspective. He treats people like meat who have no input to their own fate. To us, that's horrid because it's self-initiated and involves subterfuge.

Kyubey is obviously evil, but I love him for it. He is associated with "Lucifer", which I think is rather fitting. To give this debate a slightly more religious turn, you can compare him very well to the Devil. You can even compare the magical girls in suit:Mami: The Blind Follower (She feels indebted to Kyubey and, despite what his true intentions might be, does what he says without question).Kyoko/Sayaka: The Forsaken (Despite either of their wishes, they know they will never get what they truly want).Homura: The Damned (Despite all her efforts, she is doomed to relive through her darkest hours over and over again).Madoka: The Savior/Martyr (In the end, she chooses to sacrifice herself to cleanse the world of all of Kyubey's "evils").

As for Kyubey himself, he variously defined as he is. He is the "Contractor" quite literally offering up an attractive offer for the price of a soul. He even tries to trick them into agreeing without telling them the "fine print". He also corrupts the hearts of virgin souls. If you think about it, being an "incubator" and impregnating the young girls with the seed that will ultimately make them a monster, further exemplifies his "devilish" behavior.

Kyubey is obviously evil, but I love him for it. He is associated with "Lucifer", which I think is rather fitting. To give this debate a slightly more religious turn, you can compare him very well to the Devil. You can even compare the magical girls in suit:Mami: The Blind Follower (She feels indebted to Kyubey and, despite what his true intentions might be, does what he says without question).Kyoko/Sayaka: The Forsaken (Despite either of their wishes, they know they will never get what they truly want).Homura: The Damned (Despite all her efforts, she is doomed to relive through her darkest hours over and over again).Madoka: The Savior/Martyr (In the end, she chooses to sacrifice herself to cleanse the world of all of Kyubey's "evils").

As for Kyubey himself, he variously defined as he is. He is the "Contractor" quite literally offering up an attractive offer for the price of a soul. He even tries to trick them into agreeing without telling them the "fine print". He also corrupts the hearts of virgin souls. If you think about it, being an "incubator" and impregnating the young girls with the seed that will ultimately make them a monster, further exemplifies his "devilish" behavior.

Kyubey is obviously evil, but I love him for it. He is associated with "Lucifer", which I think is rather fitting. To give this debate a slightly more religious turn, you can compare him very well to the Devil. You can even compare the magical girls in suit:Mami: The Blind Follower (She feels indebted to Kyubey and, despite what his true intentions might be, does what he says without question).Kyoko/Sayaka: The Forsaken (Despite either of their wishes, they know they will never get what they truly want).Homura: The Damned (Despite all her efforts, she is doomed to relive through her darkest hours over and over again).Madoka: The Savior/Martyr (In the end, she chooses to sacrifice herself to cleanse the world of all of Kyubey's "evils").

As for Kyubey himself, he variously defined as he is. He is the "Contractor" quite literally offering up an attractive offer for the price of a soul. He even tries to trick them into agreeing without telling them the "fine print". He also corrupts the hearts of virgin souls. If you think about it, being an "incubator" and impregnating the young girls with the seed that will ultimately make them a monster, further exemplifies his "devilish" behavior.

I wonder if the writer put that much thought into all that.

It's Gen Urobachi. If anyone will, it's him. Well him and Esuna Sakae.

Spoiler:

I don't think he's quite Luciferian though, I think he's more like mephistopheles. But that doesn't matter as long as you acknowledge that.It's like Mephistopheles fell into the Cthulhu mythos really. I say the latter half because the sense of scale he evokes is a kind of deep terror that is really created by Lovecraft and the whole beyond our comprehension from space as well.

Last edited by DemonEyesJoe on Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:37 am; edited 1 time in total

Shogun13 wrote:Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless. For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

Backpedaling here as there are some innaccuracies here.DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT VISUAL NOVEL/ANIME SPOILERS FOR FATE/STAY NIGHT ADAPTATIONS.In Fate Route, yes, Archer does sacrifice himself, but despite his bravado, he does not do it to become a martyr. That is the opposite of what Archer's entire goal was. He "sacrificed" himself because he has already accepted the fact there would be no way he or Rin could win the Holy Grail, because even if he managed to beat Ilya and Berserker, he already knew he couldn't beat Saber and Shirou; since he is Shirou, he knows the results of the tournament, and he knew he could not beat himself since he already knew the events that transpired. It is F/SN canon that Fate Route Shirou does indeed become Archer later in life.In Unlimited Blade Works, Archer reveals his complete distaste towards the label "Martyr" and that he doesn't want to be known as a hero, like Shirou is so fixated on becoming. Especially in the Fate Route. So Archer's "sacrifice" was not a heroic move. It was his move out of desperation and self-defeatism.

Shogun13 wrote:Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless. For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

Backpedaling here as there are some innaccuracies here.DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT VISUAL NOVEL/ANIME SPOILERS FOR FATE/STAY NIGHT ADAPTATIONS.In Fate Route, yes, Archer does sacrifice himself, but despite his bravado, he does not do it to become a martyr. That is the opposite of what Archer's entire goal was. He "sacrificed" himself because he has already accepted the fact there would be no way he or Rin could win the Holy Grail, because even if he managed to beat Ilya and Berserker, he already knew he couldn't beat Saber and Shirou; since he is Shirou, he knows the results of the tournament, and he knew he could not beat himself since he already knew the events that transpired. It is F/SN canon that Fate Route Shirou does indeed become Archer later in life.In Unlimited Blade Works, Archer reveals his complete distaste towards the label "Martyr" and that he doesn't want to be known as a hero, like Shirou is so fixated on becoming. Especially in the Fate Route. So Archer's "sacrifice" was not a heroic move. It was his move out of desperation and self-defeatism.

Right. I never said his intention was to be a martyr. He went into a fight that he knew he couldn't win in order to give them a chance to run (I think). It doesn't matter if he doesn't think that he's worth a brass farthing if in the end he uses his life toward a goal in deontology. I'm only talking about the anime, where he gives them the ability to run if I remember right, but then something doesn't work. He's not an ideal case by any means, but from deontology as long as he sacrifices himself before his enemy and doesn't just step in front of a bus or stab himself with his own sword, he is heroic.

Kusanagi wrote:A bit off-topic, but I should interject. Fate/Stay Night spoilers in this post:

Deathfire123 wrote:Backpedaling here as there are some innaccuracies here.DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT VISUAL NOVEL/ANIME SPOILERS FOR FATE/STAY NIGHT ADAPTATIONS.In Fate Route, yes, Archer does sacrifice himself, but despite his bravado, he does not do it to become a martyr. That is the opposite of what Archer's entire goal was. He "sacrificed" himself because he has already accepted the fact there would be no way he or Rin could win the Holy Grail, because even if he managed to beat Ilya and Berserker, he already knew he couldn't beat Saber and Shirou; since he is Shirou, he knows the results of the tournament, and he knew he could not beat himself since he already knew the events that transpired. It is F/SN canon that Fate Route Shirou does indeed become Archer later in life.In Unlimited Blade Works, Archer reveals his complete distaste towards the label "Martyr" and that he doesn't want to be known as a hero, like Shirou is so fixated on becoming. Especially in the Fate Route. So Archer's "sacrifice" was not a heroic move. It was his move out of desperation and self-defeatism.

Actually, according to a Q&A with one of the staff, Archer probably is not directly from any of the routes in F/SN. So he didn't know the results of the HGW he was sent to and wouldn't know, outside of his own judgement, that he absolutely couldn't beat Saber and Shirou. Though I can say that wasn't the reason for his willingness to die, I don't know an alternate theory as to why he was willing to die vs. Berserker. I haven't played the Fate route in a while.

Kusanagi wrote:A bit off-topic, but I should interject. Fate/Stay Night spoilers in this post:

Deathfire123 wrote:Backpedaling here as there are some innaccuracies here.DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT VISUAL NOVEL/ANIME SPOILERS FOR FATE/STAY NIGHT ADAPTATIONS.In Fate Route, yes, Archer does sacrifice himself, but despite his bravado, he does not do it to become a martyr. That is the opposite of what Archer's entire goal was. He "sacrificed" himself because he has already accepted the fact there would be no way he or Rin could win the Holy Grail, because even if he managed to beat Ilya and Berserker, he already knew he couldn't beat Saber and Shirou; since he is Shirou, he knows the results of the tournament, and he knew he could not beat himself since he already knew the events that transpired. It is F/SN canon that Fate Route Shirou does indeed become Archer later in life.In Unlimited Blade Works, Archer reveals his complete distaste towards the label "Martyr" and that he doesn't want to be known as a hero, like Shirou is so fixated on becoming. Especially in the Fate Route. So Archer's "sacrifice" was not a heroic move. It was his move out of desperation and self-defeatism.

Actually, according to a Q&A with one of the staff, Archer probably is not directly from any of the routes in F/SN. So he didn't know the results of the HGW he was sent to and wouldn't know, outside of his own judgement, that he absolutely couldn't beat Saber and Shirou. Though I can say that wasn't the reason for his willingness to die, I don't know an alternate theory as to why he was willing to die vs. Berserker. I haven't played the Fate route in a while.

EDIT: And my vote is for Shamisen.

what i was mostly refering to in archer becoming a bad guy was when the UBW talks about his "past" (future?) where he would sacrifice 1 person to save a few, and he did this over and over until eventually everyone hated him, he was never a hero in the eyes of the people becasue of the sacrifices he unwillingly had to make. this also applies to the past of sabre, where her kingdom eventually revolted agasint her even though she always chose the best option. as the soldiers put it "she doesnt know how it feels to be a soldier" (or something like that) "the heartless king"